McCain gets slammed!!!

[Grakthis]

I read this whole thing, but i can't actually respond to it without looking stupid because I am way out of my depth.  But I am going to post something smug here in the usual hipster fashion so that you will think I don't care.  But I care so much that I desperatly need you to know how much I don't care.

Translated!

I love hipsters <3

[portions.for.foxes]

I read this whole thing, but i can't actually respond to it without looking stupid because I am way out of my depth.  But I am going to post something smug here in the usual hipster fashion so that you will think I don't care.  But I care so much that I desperatly need you to know how much I don't care.

Translated!

I love hipsters <3

Oh look at you, trying to get the last word in everything as usuall. lol

Knock it off, you're acting like a douche bag and you're not doing yourself any favors by being one. :roll:

[windycity]

how about , not backing any candidate, the reason,lack of original ideas!

[NoelleNC]

Portions for foxes, I hope that you honestly don't think anyone who is against gays being able to "marry" is a homophobic, hypocritical, past-dwelling, tradition-clinging radical.

I am all for gay rights, gays being able to adopt (even though I think the optimal parenting situation is a healthy mother/father one), gays having all the insurance benefits that married couples receive. . . I just don't understand why people like me always get clumped in with the religious fanatics. People seem to think you are either liberal and for gay marriage/rights or conservative and against gay marriage/rights. That's not true at all. I just think it'd be best for the sake of both gays and straights to differentiate between a gay union and a straight marriage.

There are still fundamental differences between the union of gays and straights. Unfortunately gay people cannot produce children, they cannot repopulate the world by their coupling. I am sorry if it offends you, but the union between a man and a woman is the default and most productive union that exists. I think it's special and deserves, if nothing else, it's own word. I'm sorry, but yes it is special. No, you cannot replicate it, no matter how much love you have between yourself and another homosexual. It is different. You cannot achieve full equality in that sense (at least not with today's technology).

And I agree with you that the divorce rate is a bigger dilemma, but that's a separate issue.

[Grakthis]

I read this whole thing, but i can't actually respond to it without looking stupid because I am way out of my depth.  But I am going to post something smug here in the usual hipster fashion so that you will think I don't care.  But I care so much that I desperatly need you to know how much I don't care.

Translated!

I love hipsters <3

Oh look at you, trying to get the last word in everything as usuall. lol

Knock it off, you're acting like a douche bag and you're not doing yourself any favors by being one. :roll:

IRONY!  OH GOD! IT HURTS! IT HUURRRRRRRRRTTSSSS!!!!

You're such a bad internet sterotype.  Like,  I could have written your last 3 posts FOR you.

You: "I am nto arguing this with you because I am losing horribly."

Me: "Loser."

You: "OMG I AM NOT LETTING YOU GET THE LAST WORD BECAUSE THAT IS SO PATHETIC."

Me: "Dude, you just posted to get the last word.  lolz.  Fucking tool."

I already know what you're going to do next.  But let's wait and see if you surprise me.

[Grakthis]

Portions for foxes, I hope that you honestly don't think anyone who is against gays being able to "marry" is a homophobic, hypocritical, past-dwelling, tradition-clinging radical.

I am all for gay rights, gays being able to adopt (even though I think the optimal parenting situation is a healthy mother/father one), gays having all the insurance benefits that married couples receive. . . I just don't understand why people like me always get clumped in with the religious fanatics. People seem to think you are either liberal and for gay marriage/rights or conservative and against gay marriage/rights. That's not true at all. I just think it'd be best for the sake of both gays and straights to differentiate between a gay union and a straight marriage.

There are still fundamental differences between the union of gays and straights. Unfortunately gay people cannot produce children, they cannot repopulate the world by their coupling. I am sorry if it offends you, but the union between a man and a woman is the default and most productive union that exists. I think it's special and deserves, if nothing else, it's own word. I'm sorry, but yes it is special. No, you cannot replicate it, no matter how much love you have between yourself and another homosexual. It is different. You cannot achieve full equality in that sense (at least not with today's technology).

And I agree with you that the divorce rate is a bigger dilemma, but that's a separate issue.

You're introducing spritiual issues into a legal and ethical discussion.

It's actually because of comments like "it is special" that gays so desperatly want to call their union "marriage."

If you'd stop pretending that the love between a husband and wife is any more special than any other love two people can feel for eachother then gays would stop desperatly yearning for the same bond.

There's no difference.  You call it a different name to differentiate the genders of the people involved, not to differentiate the feelings the couples have for eachother.

[NoelleNC]

Grakthis, umm, I didn't call it special bc of some divine love or emotional connection that the two people share... I said it was special because heterosexuals, unlike homosexuals, can reproduce. case & point. end thought.

Also, special doesn't mean holy, FYI. I'm not religious.

Stop being so condescending.

[NoelleNC]

I SAID: No, you cannot replicate it, no matter how much love you have between yourself and another homosexual. It is different. You cannot achieve full equality in that sense (at least not with today's technology).


^^ Just so you know, I didn't mean that homosexual love cannot equal heterosexual love bc the love is not as powerful or strong. I meant that no matter how much homosexuals love each other, they cannot pop out a child. That's all I meant.

[Grakthis]

Grakthis, umm, I didn't call it special bc of some divine love or emotional connection that the two people share... I said it was special because heterosexuals, unlike homosexuals, can reproduce. case & point. end thought.

Also, special doesn't mean holy, FYI. I'm not religious.

Stop being so condescending.

Let's try this again, only I'll try to be less condescending this time.

I didn't say "holy" or "religious" either.  I said spiritual.  Which is completely different.  If I had wanted to bring religion into it, I'd have said religion.

You said that the relgionship between a man and a woman is "special" in a way that a relationship between two men cannot be.  If you mean it's "special" because it can produce offspring in a biological sense then you run smack into PFF's comments from earlier about sterile heterosexual couples and couples who do not plan to have children.

My counter to his point was about the language of the LAW and how it must be changed, but you don't seem to be talking about the law of the government, you seem to be talking about morality (however you define those things, be they based in religion, natural moral law, rational moral law, whatever) or biology.  Which leaves you no room to differentiate between straight couples that cannot bare children and gay couples that cannot bare children.

So how do you distinguish?  If that is the defining factor for "special" then do you support a different union for sterile couples?

[NoelleNC]

Edit: I wrote too much, so I will boil it down: To me, the union between a man and woman is "special" bc of the potential for each man and woman to be born able to reproduce. Homosexuals are never born with the potential to reproduce amongst themselves. Not every male and female reach that potential, but the potential is their natural, default state.

Homosexual unions are not suffering from an abnormality that prevents them from reproducing with each other. They never could by default or nature, and never will naturally reproduce..... maybe someday with a lot of technological advancement they could be able to, but that's a different story.

[Grakthis]

Edit: I wrote too much, so I will boil it down: To me, the union between a man and woman is "special" bc of the potential for each man and woman to be born able to reproduce. Homosexuals are never born with the potential to reproduce amongst themselves. Not every male and female reach that potential, but the potential is their natural, default state.

Homosexual unions are not suffering from an abnormality that prevents them from reproducing with each other. They never could by default or nature, and never will naturally reproduce..... maybe someday with a lot of technological advancement they could be able to, but that's a different story.

Then, again, you're talking about spirituality.

Because, biologically, there's no distincation in "capability to reproduce" between a woman with a historectomy and a gay man.  Neither is capable of bareing children without massive scientific assistance.

You can even take a woman who has a genetic defect that makes her unable to have children, such as serious autoimmune disesease and/or endometriosis.  Someone who never had the potential to become pregnant.

I think maybe what you mean is that evolution, or whatever process created man-kind, has an evolved attachment that is different between a man and a woman than a man and a man.  But I would argue that homosexual behavior is just as natural to a gay man or woman as hetersexual behavior is to a gay man or gay woman.  Like, by definition, it is when that special attachment is aimed at the same gender.

I don't know... I mean, I can't really say I know you're wrong because I don't know any gay couples that have actually made lifetime commitments to eachother.  But I can say I have met plenty of straight couples whos relationships were anything but "special."

And it's hard to have this discussion without including some views on morality (religious, utilitarian, whatever).  From a position of rational moral law, two people should be allowed to enter into any kind of living contract they wish and there should be no LEGAL distinction in genders or in number of people entering into the contract.

[NoelleNC]

What I'm trying to say is that the prototype, default female and male (the standard, if you will) have the capability of reproduction when they have sexual intercourse. The same capability does not exist for homosexual sexual intercourse, whether they have abnormalities or are what is thought of as perfectly healthy and anatomically correct.

Not all people fit the prototype, to be honest most people do not in some area (not necessarily in the reproductive sense), but there is still the prototype, healthy, standard female and male- and even if a person doesn't fit that bill, they still had the potential to be that way by definition of their being a man and a woman.

A gay couple never has the potential to reproduce. There is no potential for a man to be born able to bare a child from another man, and vice versa with a female. However, there is the natural and default potential for every male and female to be born able to reproduce with each other.

I feel like what I'm saying isn't that difficult to understand, but it seems like you are either missing my point or deliberately skating around it.

When I'm speaking of potential, I'm speaking of what it means to be a female! The book on that would say that they can reproduce when coupled with males! Every single female to be conceived has that potential by virtue of being a girl. And that's all I'm saying =\

It's not about spirituality. It's about biology... the scientific kind... lol.

[Grakthis]

What I'm trying to say is that the prototype, default female and male (the standard, if you will) have the capability of reproduction when they have sexual intercourse. The same capability does not exist for homosexual sexual intercourse, whether they have abnormalities or are what is thought of as perfectly healthy and anatomically correct.

Not all people fit the prototype, to be honest most people do not in some area (not necessarily in the reproductive sense), but there is still the prototype, healthy, standard female and male- and even if a person doesn't fit that bill, they still had the potential to be that way by definition of their being a man and a woman.

A gay couple never has the potential to reproduce. There is no potential for a man to be born able to bare a child from another man, and vice versa with a female. However, there is the natural and default potential for every male and female to be born able to reproduce with each other.

I feel like what I'm saying isn't that difficult to understand, but it seems like you are either missing my point or deliberately skating around it.

When I'm speaking of potential, I'm speaking of what it means to be a female! The book on that would say that they can reproduce when coupled with males! Every single female to be conceived has that potential by virtue of being a girl. And that's all I'm saying =\

It's not about spirituality. It's about biology... the scientific kind... lol.

I understand what you are saying, but it's like....

You have to go 5 layers deep to really understand anything.  I'm working WITH you here, not against you.

You say "Man + Woman = special."

I say "why?"

You say "Because there is a potential for them to reproduce, in theory."

I say "what if there isn't in reality?"

You say "but there is in a world of forms (lolz plato!)"

I say "Why is that special?"

Because science and biology don't recognize a "potential" ability to reproduce in this context.  Only an actual one.

So, I ask you to go a layer deeper and tell me WHY it is special for a couple that could, in theory if neither was defective, have children to be together?

What is the difference?

I am not being difficult, I am trying to understand why you draw the line there.

[NoelleNC]

Because without repopulation life would cease to exist. I don't even know if I personally want kids, but I still find reproduction a special and unique process that occurs as a result of heterosexual intercourse.

I'm not meaning special in the "aww, how wonderful sense", but in the sense that it is the center of life as we know it. Excuse me though for using loaded language.

And yes, I do think that in this case it is important to not get caught up in the existentialism of abstract philosophy and to just commit to the obvious fact that reproduction is a usual result of male and female intercourse- even if whatever percentage of males and females may not be able to reproduce.

NO homosexuals reproduce. The general population of heterosexuals have the capability to reproduce, and those who cannot are not the default.

Obviously you have some other DEEP layers to get down to though that I just cannot comprehend with my inferior intellect.  :roll:

[Grakthis]

So, you're talking about evolution or whatever mechanism encourages reproduction, essentially.  That this mechanism has a "natural" bonding of a male and female pair as a result of the possibility of creating offspring.

I'll buy that.  I mean, it makes sense.

But is that something you can argue that a LAW should be based on?